MANILA ELECTRIC COMPANY, PASAY TRANSPORTATION CO., INC., PAMPANGA BUS COMPANY, RAYMUNDO TRANSPORTATION CO., INC., ACRO TAXICAB COMPANY, INC., MANILA YELLOW TAXICAB CO., INC., FR…

These
eight cases and a respectable number of other cases pending before the
Public Service Commission relate to the right of various operators of
autocalesas to secure the issuance of certificates of public
convenience. More specifically, there is only one fundamental question
before the appellate court, and this is whether or not it clearly
appears that there was no evidence before the Public Service Commission
to support reasonably its orders granting certificates of public
convenience (Public Service Commission Act, No. 3108, sec. 35), for the
reason that the operation of autocalesas in the City of Manila and
outlying territory and the authorization to do business will promote
the public interests in a proper and suitable manner (sec. 15 [i],
as amended). In this connection it should be explained that the word
“autocalesa” is one of local coinage, recently invented in the City of
Manila, and is applied to a certain kind of motor vehicle consisting of
a chassis, mounted on three wheels, provided with one motor, which
makes it quite similar to a motorcycle.

The applicants are understood to be owners of horse-drawn carromatas.
Their purpose in seeking authorization from the Public Service
Commission for the operation of autocalesas is to substitute their
horse-drawn vehicles with motorized units more in keeping with modern
progress. The thought is that thereby these owners may endeavour to
recoup losses occasioned horse-drawn carromatas through competition with electric line, bus, and taxicab fares. According to the applicants, carromatas are bound gradually to disappear from the streets of Manila.

In finding that public convenience would be advanced by permission to
the autocalesas to operate in the City of Manila and its suburbs, the
Public Service Commission stressed the betterment of moral and sanitary
conditions. However, an examination of the record discloses that other
factors were emphasized in the course of the reception of the testimony
and it is proper to take these factors into consideration. The chief of
police of the City of Manila testified that the substitution of carromatas
by motorized units would relieve traffic congestion to a great extent.
The superintendent of the automobile division of the Bureau of Public
Works testified that a larger revenue would be received from
autocalesas than from carromatas. There was also evidence given to the effect that the masses of the people prefer motor vehicles to carromatas
when they can afford to use them. The principal advocate of the
autocalesas stated that his purpose was to serve not the middle class
or the better class but the poor class. The conclusion, therefore, must
be that there was evidence before the commission supporting in some
degree at least its orders.

The oppositions of the Manila
Electric Company and of the owners of buses and taxicabs center on the
proposition that the public of Manila and its environs are adequately
served by existing operators and that the operation of autocalesas
would constitute ruinous competition against existing operators. It was
argued that the coordinated street railway and autobus transportation
services in the City of Manila and its suburbs might be forced out of
business through competition with the autocalesas. It was of course
conceded on all sides that the use of autocalesas will furnish
competition to established public utilities. But the traffic engineer
of the Manila Electric Company had to admit that such of the
autocalesas’ passengers as are carried at P0.10 would not be
competitive with the street car and autobus service, but that
autocalesas’ passengers carried at P0.05 would be competitive.

As a subsidiary basis for opposition, it was contended that it will be
impossible for the Public Service Commission to enforce the 70.10 rate
for autocalesas, and that consequently such rate affords no protection
against ruinous competition. In this connection it should be stated
that the Public Service Commission granted the certificates prayed for
with certain instructions, among which was the imposition of rates
charged as follows:

	“RATE A:
		“P0.10 per passenger within the city limits, without regard to distance covered.
		“Double fare shall be collected for trips from Manila to adjoining municipalities and vice versa.
	“RATE B:
		“P0.50 for thirty minutes, P0.75 for forty-five minutes, P1 for one hour, and P0.60 for each succeeding hour, regardless of the number of passengers.”

It is conceded that the autocalesas are not provided with taximeters,
and that inspectors are not employed to check the number of passengers
or the amount collected from them. On the contrary the owners of these
vehicles realizing the difficulty of maintaining adequate supervision
of the persons running the autocalesas have seen fit to let the
autocalesas for hire on the basis of the payment of a fixed amount per
month. Admitting that the advent of this new type of transportation
service creates a problem, respondents answer that its solution rests
squarely with the Public Service Commission. It is appropriate to point
out that the thirteenth condition of the commission’s order provided
that any violation of the conditions therein imposed shall be
sufficient cause for the suspension of the operation of the business of
the applicant during a reasonable period of time or for the
cancellation of the certificate of public convenience. Should the
autocalesas carry passengers at rates which violate the certificate of
public convenience, it would be comparatively easy to secure evidence
to this effect and to brine it to the attention of the Public Service
Commission for appropriate action.

It is of interest to take
account of the development of means of transportation during the last
thirty years in Manila and the municipalities surrounding the
metropolis. Originally horse-drawn vehicles, such as calesas, carromatas, and carretelas
were only available for the convenience of the travelling public. Then
came the Manila Electric Company with its modern street railway system
which placed at the disposition of the people this newer means of
transportation. The Manila Electric Company had only well begun to
provide for the necessities of the people when autobuses were invented
and brought into competition. A number of companies were permitted to
operate autobuses through the streets of Manila, and to meet this
competition, the Manila Electric Company has also been forced to
provide buses. Autobuses were only nicely in the field when still a
newer means of transportation was provided in the form of taxicabs. The
original taxicabs had only begun to operate when others claimed the
same privilege and the Manila Electric Company instituted its zoning
system. Still more recently, the midget taxis have come into the field
to provide even keener competition. And now, after all these years, the
owners of the lowly carromatas of which there are about 5,000
in the City of Manila, have asked for protection to enable them to
substitute possible profits for certain losses. Invariably has the
stereotyped defense of ruinous competition been made to each advance,
and the spectre of dire calamity has been raised in an endeavour to
perpetuate monopoly and frighten away competition.

The same
tendency to progress has been noted in the decisions of this court
which have had to do with public utilities. In Batangas Transportation
Co. vs. Orlanes ([1928], 52 Phil., 455), it was announced that
it was the policy of the law to protect the investments of existing
operators who are rendering adequate and satisfactory service from
unjustified competition from newcomers in the field of transportation.
But that salutary doctrine was modified in Carmelo and Oriol vs.
Monserrat ([1931], 55 Phil., 644), by not giving it application to a
taxicab service not operated on any fixed schedule or over any certain
route. And more recently, garages have been permitted to substitute
taxicabs for garage cars and bantam taxis have been judicially
recognized. It is believed that the basic thoughts in the mind of the
court have ever been protection of investments and the convenience of
the public. The two thoughts have seemed to conflict at times, and
undoubtedly competition has weakened investments, and the public has
not been adequately served by affording it suitable transportation, but
as best they can, the courts have endeavoured to accomplish these two
purposes. Here we have a method of transportation which, it is said,
will benefit the masses without endangering the investments of other
public utilities, and if this be true, this method of transportation
should be encouraged, leaving it to the future to determine if
corrective measures should be taken to avoid cut-throat competition.

In resume, we are unable to state that it clearly appears that there
was no evidence before the Public Service Commission to support
reasonably its orders granting certificates of public convenience to
the applicants to operate autocalesas on the streets of Manila and the
surrounding territory, for the reason that the operation of said public
utilities and the authorization to do business will promote the public
interests in a proper and suitable manner. On the contrary,
affirmatively speaking, we find sufficient evidence corroborative of
the conclusions of the Public Service Commission, and find that the
welfare of the public, particularly of the masses, will be advanced by
permitting the autocalesas to operate. Accordingly, the decision and
orders under review will here be respected and confirmed, the costs of
this instance to be paid by the petitioners and appellants.

Villa-Real, Abad Santos, Hull, and Imperial, JJ., concur.